Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Navin Chawla, JJ. while addressing a matter expressed that no judicial finding is

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., emphasizing the principle of res ipsa loquitur and placing a detailed explanation on the same

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Navin Chawla, JJ. directed that proceedings against Subway Systems (India) Private Ltd. be

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J. while addressing the matter, expressed that “…in the opinion of this Court, all cases of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. expressed that, Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J. observed that, The question of whether, once a bench of the Supreme Court has doubted

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., observed that, Rape is not merely a physical assault; it is often destructive of the whole

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Abhishek Gurawa†

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. granted bail to a young mother of two minor children, who was booked in connection with

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., reiterated that no party could be permitted to unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator, as the same

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., addressed a suit for trade mark infringement, wherein the Court additionally addressed the scope of Section

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Navin Chawla, JJ., noted the mandatory condition provided under Section 144B (7) of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., decided a matter concerning dishonour of cheque. Petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., while addressing the present matter held that prima facie view on territorial jurisdiction has to be

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., remarked that, Once the Parliament steps in and cures the defect pointed out by a Constitutional

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., held that, “…relegating parties to customary Courts when they themselves admit that they are following

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao, J., had set aside the controversial order of the CCIM (Central Council of Indian Medicine), whereby,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Jayant Nath, J., held that, Exception 3 to Section 28 of the Contract Act deals with curtailment of the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while quoting that ‘Promises are meant to be broken’ stated that the law has evolved